I don't consider saying "if you raise, I'll call" to be an angle, if everyone knows whether or not it is binding. It's just annoying chatter, but stuff like that happens all the time, no one is fooled, and the annoying chatterer isn't even trying to fool anyone. It was silly for the other guy to call the floor to complain about it to begin with.

But everyone knew to begin with that the statement was not binding, and after the floorman decided to punish the villain, everyone knew that it was binding. Maybe hero would have played his hand differently if the table was playing by normal rules, but after the floorman changes the rules, he has no choice but to play the new game to his best EV. For all he knew villain could have actually had a monster this time and was hoping to be raised big.

I agree, except in this case.

Normally, a good dealer intervenes and makes clear whether that phrase is binding or not, and any ambiguity is avoided.

In this specific case, the floor injected uncertainty by stating that the next time would be binding. It's uncertain because (a) what if the dealer or floor changes, and the next dealer or next floor is unwilling to enforce the previous decision, and (b) is it possible for a floor to even create a rule that breaks house rules?

Cards thrown face down that touch the muck are always dead and no floor should be allowed to change that rule. Cards thrown face up that touch the muck can receive a floor decision. Bad floor decision to make the player who gave up his hand pay rather then removing him from the game. You still never posted the final outcome so I assume they made him pay.

Not at all accurate, unless you happen to be playing at a magic muck card room.

Other than a bad local room rule show us that rule. Face up is not even a question. They are live. Face down should be live if identifyable

In this specific case I would have wanted the dealer (who was well aware of impending need for a ruling) to have stopped the player from mucking and explain the situation to him. If you know you are going to force him to call make him aware. Instead of giving a look to OP he should have announced to table the action is binding BEFORE the raise.

Not cheating, but OP was definitely using the ruling/warning from over an hour previous to his advantage.

As much as I disagree with a floor making up a rule to address unwanted player behavior, it is no longer the responsibility of the dealer to save the player from being an idiot and hanging himself by said rule.

Of course OP was using the rule to his advantage and it's not even close to being considered cheating.

The only reason the idiot should be protected is because they are making up rules as they go along. If you are going to change the rules, then make sure its well known.

A better solution (an hour before this) would have been "next time your banned for 24hrs", but the table probably would have preferred his antics to the drunk $3k leaving.

They're probably not making up rules as they go along. The TDA has the following rule, and the room I play in (and I imagine many others, including the one in this post) has a similarly written rule regarding cash games.

"59: Conditional & Premature Declarations

A: Conditional statements of future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged. At TDs discretion they may be binding and/or penalized. Example: “if – then” statements such as "If you bet, I will raise.”

B: If Player A declares “bet” or “raise” and B calls before A’s exact bet amount is known, the TD will rule the bet as best fits the situation including possibly obliging B to call any amount."